## Facts

- William Tesar, declared incompetent, owned an 80-acre farm in Haddam, Connecticut; his son Joseph B. Tesar served as conservator and sought to sell the property.
- Jere Adametz, a real estate agent, acted as the conservator’s agent to sell the property and advertised five acres with an old colonial house for $6,200.
- Jere showed Fowler V. Harper the entire 80-acre farm, stated the asking price was $8,500, and suggested the buildings and a smaller acreage could be purchased for less.
- Without having received an actual offer from Harper, Jere wrote the conservator stating he had a client offering $6,500 cash for the entire farm and requested an immediate response.
- The conservator’s attorney indicated the conservator would accept $6,500, subject to probate approval and receipt of a written offer with a deposit.
- Harper later offered Jere $7,000 for the entire farm; Jere promised to relay the offer but did not, and instead sent a $500 deposit based on the earlier, purported $6,500 “client” offer.
- Jere arranged for intermediaries to facilitate a transfer structure under which Harper would buy the improved portion (house and some land) while most remaining acreage would end up with Jere’s son, Walter Adametz; Jere also sought to preserve his commission.
- Jere told Harper that Harper’s $7,000 offer had been rejected and represented that relatives wished to keep or purchase most of the acreage, but that Harper could buy the buildings and part of the land.
- Harper ultimately purchased the improved portion for $6,000; the remaining acreage effectively went to Walter through the structure Jere arranged, and Jere received a sales commission from the seller’s side.
- Harper sued Jere and Walter for fraud based on misrepresentations and concealment surrounding the sale and the handling of Harper’s offer.

## Issues

1. Whether a real estate broker who is the seller’s agent can, through his conduct, become a fiduciary or agent of a prospective buyer sufficient to support liability for deceit or breach of fiduciary duty.
2. Whether the buyer proved actionable fraud, including that the misrepresentation was directed at him and that he suffered legally cognizable damages caused by the broker’s conduct.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors affirmed judgment for the defendants.
- The court condemned Jere’s conduct as unfair dealing but held that any fraud was practiced on the conservator (the seller’s representative), not on Harper in a manner supporting Harper’s claim.
- The court concluded that Jere was the conservator’s agent, not Harper’s, and the facts did not establish a fiduciary relationship running from Jere to Harper.
- The court upheld the finding that Harper failed to prove compensable injury attributable to the alleged fraud.

## Legal Principles

- A fraud claim requires proof of a fraudulent misrepresentation (or equivalent deceit) and resulting actual damages to the plaintiff.
- In an arm’s-length real estate transaction, a broker for the seller does not owe fiduciary duties to a prospective buyer absent special circumstances creating such a relationship.
- Ethically improper conduct by an agent may warrant condemnation but does not alone establish civil liability to a nonprincipal without duty and causation of legally cognizable harm.
- Where the deception primarily injures the principal the agent represents (here, the seller’s conservator), a third party must still prove duty and personal damages to recover for fraud.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed for the defendants because the broker’s misleading conduct did not make him the buyer’s fiduciary or agent, and the buyer failed to prove that any deception caused him a legally compensable injury, even though the broker’s behavior was condemned as unfair dealing.


Harper v. Adametz, 142 Conn. 218, 113 A.2d 136 (Conn. 1955)